‘To leave without a deal would be an irresponsible act of self-harm’: Britain’s justice secretary and lord chancellor David Gauke.
Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

This Tuesday, the House of Commons votes on the deal agreed by the government with the European Union on the terms of our departure.

For some of my colleagues, they are concerned that the deal is not sufficiently pure a Brexit to satisfy them. For others, the deal takes us too far away from EU membership.

Like most MPs, I campaigned and voted to remain in the EU. I was concerned that extricating ourselves from a relationship built up over 40 years would be complex and challenging and that the economic cost of increasing friction in our trade with the EU would be high.

I do not resile from that assessment. But these were arguments that were put before the British people and did not prevail. Leave won the vote. It wasn’t what I wanted but the government and parliament has a duty to implement that decision in the best way possible.

Inevitably, the process has not been straightforward. There are tradeoffs between independence and co-operation, between regulatory autonomy and market access. This means that compromises are necessary to deliver a pragmatic Brexit that protects jobs and living standards while respecting the referendum result.

The prime minister has succeeded in delivering that deal. The agreement delivers on the referendum result – we leave the institutions, the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, we will cease to make vast payments to the EU budget, freedom of movement comes to an end, as does the jurisdiction of the European court of justice. But we will still have a deep and special partnership that ensures continued co-operation on trade and security. It avoids the significant economic cost many feared would be the inevitable consequence of Brexit.

The choices for the country have become clearer. No deal would cause unnecessary economic damage

In parliament, the arguments against the deal fall into three categories.

First, there are those want no compromise with the EU and would be willing – even happy – to leave without a deal. I have to say that this would be an irresponsible act of self-harm.

Second, there are those who accept that there is a need for a deal but just not this deal. Some argue for a Canada-style free trade agreement without a Northern Ireland backstop. Others, like the Labour frontbench, argue, in effect, for membership of the single market and customs union without free movement.

Neither position is negotiable, as anyone with even a passing acquaintance of the thinking of the EU would know. A Canada-style deal for the whole of the UK results in a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For that reason, it has never been acceptable to the EU without a permanent hard border down the Irish Sea.

And it has been clear from the early stages of the negotiations that the type of relationship supported by the Labour frontbench means agreeing to free movement which Labour supposedly opposes.

A slightly more credible position in terms of negotiability is to favour an EEA-plus customs union relationship. But given the level of continuity with the current relationship, including free movement, many will ask what is the point. Unlike the prime minister’s deal, we do not gain control of our laws, borders and money. We would neither be able to strike trade deals with countries around the world, nor would it be as straightforward to negotiate as some suggest.

Others support the deal but for concerns about the backstop. The government is committed to not imposing a border in Ireland and the backstop guarantees that. It has been made abundantly clear that both sides would find this situation acutely uncomfortable. Nonetheless, what is clear is that no backstop means no deal.

The third argument is to say that we should not proceed with Brexit until there has been a second referendum. But rejecting the deal to pursue a so-called “people’s vote” comes with great risks. It is by no means guaranteed to be a silver bullet. In fact, it is more likely to further entrench division and lead to at least a further year of damaging uncertainty.

The choices for the country have become clearer. No deal would cause unnecessary economic damage. No Brexit, which runs huge risks for our political stability. Or supporting a pragmatic deal that, yes, involves compromises but can ultimately bring the country together. Ruling out the only deal on the table puts the country in a perilous situation.

So, let me make this appeal to those MPs of all parties who see themselves as pragmatists and who live in the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. Seize the opportunity to deliver a sensible Brexit and vote for the deal on Tuesday evening.